life + 14, as Professor Rufus Pollock found IS REASONABLE
because Pollock studied scientifically and economically the duration of profitable economic utilization
people sponsoring life +50 what kind of objective and scientific arguments do they have to propose life+50 excepted their own thoughts about this subject?
in addition to this,
life + 50 IS NOT REASONABLE because this was the previous term that was inopportunely extended in 1993 to 70. So, now the reduction should be not 20 year, but 20 + 20 = 40 years and 70-40 = 30
apart this there are the ORPHAN WORKS locked down by copywrong
a publisher may make money publishing an orphan works without fear to see seized phisical copies of deleted scanned images of work
"It is evident in light of the social, legal and economic justifications outlined by the EC in the 1993 Duration Directive, that the extended term of protection to life of the author plus 70 years for copyright works was a mistake"
Now, hearing that they give us the mercy to return to 50 sounds like a joke!
Professor Rufus Pollock, an Oxford teacher on economic matters, examined on the scientific side the duration of economical urtilization of works after the author's death with the help of math and the economical models
he concluded that 14 years is the optimal duration, after author's death, for monopoly on economical utilization that prevents us from sharing freely his works
Re: Re: Re: Re:
life + 14, as Professor Rufus Pollock found IS REASONABLE
because Pollock studied scientifically and economically the duration of profitable economic utilization
people sponsoring life +50 what kind of objective and scientific arguments do they have to propose life+50 excepted their own thoughts about this subject?
in addition to this,
life + 50 IS NOT REASONABLE because this was the previous term that was inopportunely extended in 1993 to 70. So, now the reduction should be not 20 year, but 20 + 20 = 40 years and 70-40 = 30
apart this there are the ORPHAN WORKS locked down by copywrong
a publisher may make money publishing an orphan works without fear to see seized phisical copies of deleted scanned images of work
a private cannot share orphan works
so, the law IS NOT THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY
Ue extended from 50 to 70 years copywrong in 1993! Now it wants to return to 50 again? It is not a progress...
Do you should remember that UE in 1993 EXTENDED copywrong from 50 to 70 years!
https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/ip/resources/ip_dissertations/2002-03/SkiltonDissetation.doc
"It is evident in light of the social, legal and economic justifications outlined by the EC in the 1993 Duration Directive, that the extended term of protection to life of the author plus 70 years for copyright works was a mistake"
Now, hearing that they give us the mercy to return to 50 sounds like a joke!
Professor Rufus Pollock, an Oxford teacher on economic matters, examined on the scientific side the duration of economical urtilization of works after the author's death with the help of math and the economical models
he concluded that 14 years is the optimal duration, after author's death, for monopoly on economical utilization that prevents us from sharing freely his works
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/
obviou sly, Ue ignored completely the studies of Professor Pollock in its answer to the consultation
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/contribution s/consultation-report_en.pdf
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by followRufus.
Submit a story now.